Aliance of Communities for Sustainable Fisheries
P O Box 1309, Carmel Valley, CA 93924 (831) 659-2838

February 3, 2004

The Honorable Sam Farr, US House of Representatives, 1221 Longworth House Office Bldg., Washington, DC 20515

The Honorable Anna Eshoo, US House of Representatives, 205 Cannon House Office Bldg., Washington, DC 20515

The Honorable Lois Capps, US House of Representatives, 1707 Longworth House Office Bldg., Washington, DC 20515

The Honorable Michael Honda, US House of Representatives, 1713 Longworth House Office Bldg., Washington, DC 20515

Dear Representatives Farr, Eshoo, Capps, and Honda,
Our organization, the Alliance of Communities for Sustainable Fisheries (ACSF), was formed to represent the economic, social, and cultural interests of the recreational and commercial fishing industry in the geographic region from Port San Luis to Pillar Point Harbors. As the name implies, we are committed to the preservation of sustainable fisheries, and link fishing activities with the greater communities that support our industry. The City Councils of Monterey and Morro Bay, the elected Commissions of the San Mateo County, Moss Landing and Port San Luis Harbor Districts, and the Santa Cruz Port District adopted resolutions supporting ACSF efforts. The ACSF offers itself as an accurate sounding board to the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary for fishing issues that occur in this area. We have many shared goals, and seek a constructive relationship with the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary.

We are writing in the hope of gaining your help in the upcoming reauthorization of the National Marine Sanctuary Act (NMSA). We believe that there are several areas of the NMSA that must be clarified to work better with other existing federal laws and other regulatory processes if the National Marine Sanctuary Program is to continue to enjoy widespread public support and more fully accomplish its goals.

Although the Sanctuary Program enjoys support, it is largely from a public with only a general understanding of its mission and authorities. We further perceive that the closer different communities or industries work with the Program, concerns about the broad authority of the Program often arise. Indeed, there appears to be a drumbeat of skepticism from a variety of ocean users and agencies towards the Federal Agency which implements the NMSA. We think, in fairness to this agency and its staff, much of the problem lies in the NMSA, which is overly broad and vague in stating its mission.

Regulatory Authority
It is our feeling that the Sanctuary Program should distinguish itself from state and federal regulatory agencies by accomplishing its goals through education, facilitation, and cooperation amongst different communities and industries, rather than regulation. Particularly with fishermen, we note that when regulation is threatened, resistance rises. However, when there is an offer to work in a context of mutual respect, very positive ideas and changes may come forward. This is just human nature.

Our perceptions of these problems are not limited to the fishing community, although we are a prime example. We are solidly in favor of the broad conservation, research and educational efforts of the Sanctuary Program. However, we have felt ourselves very much at odds with the Program over its assertion of regulatory authority superior to the established fishery management agencies. This is about more than the violation of a promise made to the fishing community that the Sanctuary would not involve itself in fishery management. For Sanctuaries to assert authority over the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation Act (please note the attached Sanctuary–authored policy paper) causes confusion in the industry and between agencies, and most importantly, can have a negative consequence on the sustainable production of food for our nation. The fishing industry, both recreational and commercial, will not be likely to support new or expanded sanctuaries, and will remain resistant and highly skeptical of the existing Sanctuary Programs, as long as this area of sanctuary management is not clarified and limited. At the same time, we will welcome working with the Sanctuary Program to identify problems and solutions that affect sanctuary resources. We seek a partnership that will benefit and empower all interests. We have attached an amended version of the NMSA Section 1434(5), which reflects the change we hope to see in this federal law. It essentially clarifies that the Sanctuary Program’s role in matters that affect fishing is to comment to the appropriate agencies.

We have found that the agriculture, business and harbor communities, as well as numerous agencies share our concern about the broad regulatory authority of the NMSP. To be clear, it is our belief that support for the Sanctuary Program will be strengthened if the regulatory authority of the Program is much more narrowly defined.

CONTINUED